Antonio Sharpe, etc. v. Commonwealth ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Willis and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
ANTONIO SHARPE, S/K/A
ANTONIO V. SHARPE
v. Record No. 2437-93-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 30, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Dennis F. McMurran, Judge
Dianne G. Ringer, Assistant Public Defender (John H.
Underwood, III, Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (James S.
Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Antonio V. Sharpe (defendant) was convicted by the trial court
of robbery, malicious wounding, and two related firearm charges.
Defendant complains on appeal that (1) the court erroneously
limited his cross-examination of a witness, and (2) the
Commonwealth wrongfully withheld exculpatory evidence. However,
these issues were not presented to the trial court and will not be
entertained on appeal. We, therefore, affirm the convictions.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in this case,
and we recite only those facts necessary to explain our holding.
During defendant's cross-examination of Detective Welton
Beard, the trial court sustained the Commonwealth's objection to a
question propounded by defendant's counsel, the inquiry was
rephrased, and the witness responded. It is well established that,
"[o]n appeal, a ruling of a trial court cannot be a basis for
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated
for publication.
reversal unless an objection is stated 'together with the grounds
therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or
to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.'"
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2
(1991) (en banc) (quoting Rule 5A:18). "Among the purposes
underlying the contemporaneous objection rule are to enable the
trial court to prevent error, to cure alleged error with prompt and
decisive instruction, and to prevent compounding any harmful
consequences by dwelling on irrelevant matters." Harward v.
Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 468, 473-74, 364 S.E.2d 511, 513 (1988).
Here, defendant made no objection to the initial ruling of the
trial court relative to the disputed question. See Rule 5A:18.
Moreover, defendant failed to proffer questions and answers for the
record to facilitate proper appellate review. See Spencer v.
Commonwealth, 238 Va. 295, 305, 384 S.E.2d 785, 792 (1989), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 1093 (1990). Under such circumstances, we are
unable to consider the issue and find no justification for the
"ends of justice" exception to Rule 5A:18. Id.; see Mounce v.
Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987).
Defendant further contends that differences in the testimony
of Detective Beard and the victim with respect to the number of
gunshots fired "strongly suggest[s]" a prior inconsistent statement
by the victim, which constituted exculpatory evidence wrongfully
withheld by the Commonwealth. However, defendant also failed to
properly present this issue to the trial court, and we decline to
consider it. Rule 5A:18.
- 2 -
Affirmed.
- 3 -